2002 Grand Caravan - Any Issues???

Sorry to report that, due to a 16 year old idiot with a "learners" permit, my perfectly maintained 1994 Grand Caravan has been "totaled". :(

Worse, the insurance company does not seem to give a flying fig about the $10,000 I put into it over the years. I am getting about $200 over "book value" for it (even though we are ZERO percent at fault). What a pi$$off.

We had a rental late model Caravan for a while, and I must say I liked the older body style much better. The newer style has some NASTY blind spots! :( And I liked being up higher - better visiblility. And I also see that by turning the thing into a "bubble van" they have also (by eye-ball) apparently cut the cargo space capacity when comparing Grand Caravan (94) to Grand Caravan (late model).

Be that as it may, I am now looking for a replacement vehicle. Since we still have kids, and love camping, looks like a mini-van is still the order of the day!

I would have loved to get a 94/95 and fix it up, but since I could do that and wind up screwed again through no fault of my own, it just makes no financial sense. Looks like I will have to go newer to protect my financial investment.

I am going to look at a 2002 Grand Caravan. It only has 92000 km on it. If I like it, then I am going to have a body shop look at it, and then a full mechanical inspection.

But I wanted to check in hear before that and see if there are any known issues that are associated with this model year.

The word on the tranmissions is that the problems were corrected with the 2000 model year, and that the newer ones are good - but it is still a little early to tell. No problem, I have a good shop on-tap that can rebuild these in their sleep for only $1495 + tax. Although at 92000 km, I expect to get at least another 50000 km out of it before having to do so!

So if anyone knows of problems, let's hear it!

Thanks

Reply to
NewMan
Loading thread data ...

Hi Newman...

I have nothing at all worthwhile to contribute, but given that I am now the proud grandfather of a youngster with a learners permit I can't help asking, if I may?

How in the world can it be both a "16 year old idiot", AND "we are ZERO percent at fault" ?

Take care, and good lucking finding another van.

Ken

Reply to
Ken Weitzel

With respect Ken,

Insurance rates for single males under the age of 21 are about as high as it gets. The reason for this is that they tend to have the highest rate of accidents. Raging hormones, no fear, and no concept of how their actions could affect others are some of the reasons.

In an attempt to address this in our locality, we now have a "graduated" licensing system. At the age of 16, you can write a test, and get your "L" learners permit. You must have this for a minimum of

1 year. After one year, there is both a written and a road test. If you pass these, then you get a restricted license - the "N". You must keep the "N" designation for a minimum of 2 years. At the end of the 2 years, there is another wirten test and another driving test. If you pass all these tests over time, then you get an unrestricted "Class 5" license.

Until you have your unrestricted license, there is ZERO TOLLERANCE for alcohol. And while you have your "L" there is zero tolerance for moving violations. Any violation will result in your license being revoked. There is an associated driving ban after which you can re-apply at the "L" level and start all over again.

Any driver with an "L" designation MUST be accompanied by a fully licensed driver who is a minimum of 25 years old. This is by statute and is NOT a guideline.

With that background in mind...

This 16 year old had only had his "L" for 2 weeks. He went out for a drive with his girlfriend who is not only under the age of 25, but her license is an "N". SO he had already broken 2 of the stautory requirements of operating the vehicle. He then was so busy chatting up his girlfriend and looking at her that he not only failed to stop at a stop sign, he also made an illegal left hand turn in the process and hit my vehicle when it was clearly 1/2 way through the intersection. Because of his irresponsible acitons, there was no possible way to avoid the accident. And to top it off, he tried to move the vehcile after the accident to conceal the fact that he was at fault. A move that was noticed by the police - and he has been so charged as it is an offense to do so. HIS parents insurance company has declared him

100% at fault. The poilce have laid at least 3 charges against him. And he is likely facing a 5 year driving ban. He is, IMHO, completely irresponsible. His lack of care and concern, and his deference to the hardship that he has caused - to me at least - make him an idiot.

So I will be out of pocket the $10,000 I put into my van, plus the fact that I will now have to have a car loan - likely for the next 5 years or so. I have had to cancel our vacation, and my wife will likely be off work for MONTHS and is in pain while we are trying to move into our new appartment.

And to add insult to injury, his mothers car was new enough that it is being fixed! So the little puke did not get injured, has suffered no loss, and has no bloody clue of the pain and suffering he has caused - and likely would not care even if he DID know. Mommy will get her car back, and mommy will likely drive him everywhere - so not having a license will not even be an inconveinience to him.

All of this, in my view, makes him a "16 year old idiot". The accident was completely avoidable - presuming he had not been driving with his prick. And, as you can see, we had absolutely no fault in this particular situation. It is VERY RARE that an insurance company will rule fault at "100% - 0%" because it is not in their best interests to do so - and even THEY have made this assesment.

Around these parts, you can't drink until you are 19, you cannot vote until you are 18, and (IIRC) you cannot own a gun until you are 21. So the question is, why the hell do we allow anyone as young as 16 to get behind the wheel of a potentially leathal machine???? If I had my way, you would not even be able to get your learners until the age of 19, maybe even 21. And, just so you know, even though these restrictions did not exist when I was a teen, I did not get my learners permit until I was 19, and I did not get my full license until I was almost

  1. This was NEVER an >
Reply to
NewMan

The cost of replacement as new insurance would have been much more, but you should get at least current retail value. You could challenge them with current prices for a similar vehicle in your area.

Much sooner than that, by the mid 90s.

Reply to
Some O

That is the problem. The maintenance over time is more than the existing retail market. And the problem is if you go and look at one of the 94/95 vans that is currently for sale, most are in need of extensive repairs - unlike my van where everything was in PERFECT working order. To the insurance company, the van is worth no more than what the market will bear in resale, period. My $10,000 in maintneance translated into about $300 extra value in the car. Hell, I just spent $250 having the entire van "detailed" including total engine shampoo, interior clean, A/C duct cleaning, Scothguard, vinyl preservative, and a HAD wax.

The whole thing is a heartbreaker. I just cannot believe that keeping your car in good working order does not add value to it. Heck the tires on it are worth $700!

I do understand that writting it off is the correct thing to do. The entire front end has been bent to the drivers side by about 2 inches. The initial repair estimate was $5100, and was projected to reach $6500 on a "book value" of about $3300. Even if you did spring for the cash, then there still could be other issues, so it is gone for sure.

Excellent!

Reply to
NewMan

Reminds me of something that happened to me over 30 years ago with a new driver. We were newlyweds, and our only car was a Mercury Capri that we had bouight brand new ($2700). Had to get a hood and front bumper repaired (another car had pulled out in front of me and stopped dead in the road when I blew the horn).

Anyway - the body shop did not do a good job of blending the hood to the driver's side fender, so I had them re-do it. When they finally got it finished the second time. there was one trim piece that was late coming into the dealer about 30 miles away - everything else on the repair was finished, and the dealer called the body shop and said the part had just come in. So I talked the body shop into letting me drive it to the dealer to pick up the part. Well - on the way to the dealer to pick up the part, a girl who had just gotten her license changed lanes right into me, damaging the same fender that the body shop had just had to paint twice. I didn't go to the dealer. I turned around and went back to the body shop. As I pulled into their parking lot, the owner comes out of his office with his hands up in the air and a genuine look of anguish on his red face and yelled "YOU DIDN'T!!!!".

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Yep. I was in the middle of fixing up a Mazda one time when someone rear-ended it at a stop light, knocking it into the car in front. I had gotten perfect chrome trim strips out of a junk yard to replace the original black painted ones that were peeling, and had taken the original strips off - had both old and "new" strips sitting in my garage waiting for the next weekend to put them on when the accident happened, totalling the car.

The insurance company's appraiser deducted the value of all the chrome strips from the value of the car for valuation purposes - deducted the full brand new cost of the strips from the Mazda dealer (which if you've ever owned a Mazda you know their parts prices are beyond ridiculous). This took place in our driveway - 20 feet from my garage where both sets of trim stips were laying. I protested and said I could show him the strips. He said he didn't need to see them - he was only allowed to include in the value of the vehicle what was on it at the time of the accident. I persisted but he absolutely refused to add the deductions back into the value of the car.

I called the insurance co. and told them that I would not work with that appraiser - that unless they wanted to go to small claims court, they'd better send another appraiser. They did.

Also, as Some O said, you need to assert yourself and insist on them giving you fair market *retail* value of the car. What I found works is using Kelly Blue Book value (don't let them use fraudulent NADA wholesale value), several comps out of Auto Trader deducting resonable amounts for typical difference between asking and actual, and got three dealers to write their appraisal of the retail value of the car. Though it took a lot of time to pull all that info. together (and they know that it takes tiome and that most people eventually give up) with that ammunition they paid me full retial value (this was a different car - not the Mazda).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Wow, 10 grand "YOU" put in the minivan. What did you do dip it in 24 karat gold?

Reply to
hartless

I had a similar incident where I considered my exceptional care and maintenance to a vehicle worth more than the insurance company offer. I insisted they find me the same car in the same condition...... well they found two and they turned out to be in even better condition than mine and where on dealer lots for less money. So I shut up and took the amount they offered.

Kevin

Reply to
KS

Hi Newman...

I owe you an apology, and hope that you will accept it.

Somehow in my getting on in years and a stroke damaged mind I had you in the position of car owner, as well as the "owner/teacher" of the 16 year old. Sorry.

I suspect that you're right - today's young people are a little irresponsible. But I suspect that my generation was too, we just couldn't see it any more clearly than today's youngster do :)

I'm in Manitoba, Canada, fwiw, and I suspect that our graduated licenses are much like yours. Get a learner's at 16 (15.5, but ONLY to drive with a professional instructor or a parent). One year of driving with anyone who has held a full license for (not sure)

2 or 3 years. No passengers (other than the teacher) other than immediate family. During this time strict zero tolerance for any infractions (even so far as to the "teacher" not wearing a seat belt :)

Interesting side thought. The government says they can go with anyone who's held a license, etc., but one of my grandkids is only a couple of doors from me. Her Mother has a list of who she may go with, too, and her list is very very very short! :)

Great for me, I get taken out for hot chocolate and donuts often :)

Another insteresting thought, and perhaps worth taking note of for others who may be in my position. Amazes me how easily she can be distracted. If I so much as speak to her, she happily looks at me, and keeps looking until I stop speaking! Maybe we taught her that, pay attention when you're being spoken to? Yikes, we have to work on that :)

And if you're interested, our youngsters can drink at 18; vote at 18; and you're never old enough to own a gun :)

We have government insurance, and it's no-fault (civilly).

Now the perhaps helpful part. Here, at least, we can buy back written off cars. (if it's written off, it's just going to a junk yard anyway, right?) So you might consider asking your insurance company if you can buy back your old one, reclaiming your well maintained engine, transmission, interior, etc., and put them into a less desirable one that you might find for the dollars they allow you. Just a thought.

Sorry again for the misunderstanding, and take care.

Ken

Reply to
Ken Weitzel

No problem Ken. I am in BC.

I have thought about it, and given that the entire front end has gone from square to a "trapizoid" with an offset of 2 inches to the left, I just don't think it is worth the risk to try and rebuild the car. Even swapping parts to another chassis would take a fair amount of work, and may not yield the desired results. Worse, I would have to pay someone else to do it, and it would take time that I am running out of.

Thanks for the thought though!

Reply to
NewMan

Well there was the head gasket, the tranmission, the rear springs, two A/C repairs, new tires, a major tune-up, a 2 inch receiving hitch, half-shafts, rear hatch solenoid, full detailing, A/C duct cleaning, cruise control switch, new battery, complete brake job, new stearing rack and tie rod ends, sway bar bushings, belt tensioner, motor mounts.....

Yup. I had just gotten rid of the last creaks and groans. It was good as new.

Reply to
NewMan

From their perspective (and a judge/jury if it came to that), I don't see a thing in your list that isn't routine maintenance to keep it from falling apart - nothing to enhance it's value. Now you and I know that most people don't replace things until a whel falls off or it quits running, and so on a typical older vehicle, there will be *lots* of marginal partrs and nuisance problems (squeak in the dash, gas gage mysteriously drops to zero occasionally, lights flicker, have to charge the a.c. once or twice a year, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc...

Real world is that the value you get out of regularly maintaining it is your satisfaction in using a vehicle with reliablility and without nuisance problems while you have it. It's unrealisitc to expect an insurance company to throw that into the equation - *EXCEPT* it could help you in getting true fair market value *IF* you can clearly demonstrate to them that it is in "EXCELLENT* condition rather than

*FAIR* or *POOR* condition - that's where the honest blue book values
formatting link
come into play - if you can get them talking honestly and fairly about price (my experience is that you have to threaten to sue their at-fault client to get their attention to that point though - and when you do that, you have to make it clear that you aren't bluffing - you mean business - then they start listening and offering somewaht fair value. Also be aware that, unless it's your ins. co. you're dealing with, it's their at fault client - not the ins. co. itself - that you are threatening to sue for your loss - that seems to get everybody's attention).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

Newman a few things that may help:

1) you can try getting some of the money you put in. Start by presenting the receipts for the service work. A coworker of mine was in a similar situation as you 2 years ago, he had a chevy geo that he had put a factory rebuilt engine in that he rear-ended someone with. (rainy weather) His insurance company did total out his car - but after he gave them copies of the receipts for the work that was done, he got the blue book plus all the extra money he had put into the car.

Blue book value ASSUMES that no SIGNIFICANT work has been done to the vehicle.

Hopefully you have comprehensive, and if you do then claim it against your own policy, and let your agent fight with the other company for the money. If you don't and your arguing with the other company directly, then you may want to get a car appraisal done immediately, before the car is scrapped. You may have to file a civil lawsuit to get the real market value of the vehicle. Don't hesitate and do file one. Insurance companies are used to people threatening to sue, or paying lawyers to send letters threatening to sue, so they generally don't pay attention to that. But the second you file, they will respond because they do not want you to find out how easy it is to sue them. Here, a lawsuit like that if fought by the Insurance company would end up in front of a jury and there's not a person under the sun who doesen't think Insurance companies are greedy bastards, and it's damn near impossible not to get a jury ruling in your favor, against the insurance company, and the companies know it. You don't even have to bother with retaining a lawyer, just file the paperwork with the court yourself is enough.

2) Consider a buy back. It would cost you very little to buy it from the insurance company. They sell these for scrap value, sometimes as little as $50 will do it. You could have it towed to your driveway, list it on someplace like craigslist, and within a week some local person who rebuilds vehicles in their garage for extra money would be by with a flatbed trailer and $500 and be very happy to get it.

3) I would strongly suggest that you write a letter to the DA (I don't know if they have DA's where you live) and put everything in it that your saying here. If this happened in the state I live in, the DA would plea bargain it down with the 16 year old's lawyer in order to save the expense of a trial. But, the DA will take into consideration anything that you tell them. If you tell them nothing, they will assume that nobody got injured, it didn't hurt anyone, etc. If you explain that you probably won't get a complete payout from the insurance, that your wife did get hurt, etc. the DA may even order the kid to pay restitution.

4) I would also try to setup a meeting with the kids parents and the kid. That is if you could stomach it. If I was in your situation I would try it. If the kids parents accomodated me I would try to be as kind as I could to the kid, but firm, and explain how his actions impacted me and my family and the results. Something like that is extremely hard for the victim to do, but you will find that if you do it, you will feel much better for doing it. And it will possibly prevent the kid from having another car accident - because when he's confronted after the fact, he is forced to understand that you are a real person, and that sinks in far better than a lot of punishments would. Of course, conversely you are also forced to view the kid as something other than a 16 year old idiot, and you may be happier just continuing to think of him as a 16 year old spoiled idiot, and not really bothering to find out the truth.

If the kids parents refused, I would certainly do all I could to extract as much as possible, including filing a civil lawsuit, etc. if possible. A refusal indicates the parents are coddling the child, which is pretty destructive to the child's development, and the parents also need to be taught a lesson as well.

5) One last bit on the medical claims. You will almost certainly get a lot of pressure from the insurance company to sign off on your wife's injuries as being healed, and allowing them to close the claim, several months from now. What you need to do is find out what the statue of limitations for suing is. Here in this state it's 2 years. Do not sign the medical claim closure until a week before the statue runs out. Most of the time people heal up from these injuries just fine. But sometimes a year later a problem may come back and you will be screwed if you close the claim.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

The standard line out of the insurance industry play book when you tell them to either pay you a fair value or find you an equivalent car is: "We're not in the business of buying cars for people". I had that line used on me twice in two separate incidences.

On my last bout on getting fair value on vehilce that they were totalling out, I found exactly the opposite of what you dio. I went to

4 used car lots in my town and made an honest attempt to find equivalent vehicles and to see what the actual selling price would be. The prices were in line with KBB, *BUT* what I was finding was that the cars - even newer ones than what I had - were absolute pieces of sh** cosmetically compared to mine pre accident. And that gets back to what NewMan was saying about getting some value from how you've maintained it - not just to keep it running, but to keep it looking good and fixing the minor nuisance things that most people just let go.

With the honest information I had, they paid the retail KBB value - and I was willing to sue their client for the difference, and told them so when they had been playing the brick wall game for about a week - that made a big difference in keeping them honest.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Reply to
Bill Putney

In fact, I am stalling both insurance companies. I have an appointment with a kick-ass lawyer tomorrow that specializes in dealing with insurance companies. Before I sign ANYTHING, I want to lay out the case and how I view it, and see was a legal professional has to say about my posisiton, and the reality of the legal situation in my speciifc case.

Could be the best $100 I ever spent! :))))

In the mean time, I will try to find more information about the vehicle value. I know my insurance company is looking at local re-sale of older vans that have NOT been maintained like mine. But I cannot get ti though thier thick skull that a reliable vehicle has enhanced value.

I know what you are saying about maintenance of the vehicle, Bill. However, I do not agree that a well maintained vehicle is worth the same as one that is marginally maintained and "runs".

I suspect I have a case. My premise is that if the insurance company will only pay $3500, and another van similarly equipped and in as good shape will cost $10,000, then the at fault client should be sueable for the difference - in this case $6500 in this example.

And this amount does NOT include the physical injury to my wife, her pain and suffering, and the suffereing we have all undergone at this hectic time in our lives. All that has GOT to be worth something. And I am going to find out from the lawyer.

If I have a case, then the t>NewMan wrote:

Reply to
NewMan

I DID provide them with the reciepts! The $3500, supposedly, includes the $10,000 in work that was done. Someone locally told me that they basically ignor anything done to the van that is older than about a year. Some of the work was 2 to 3 years old.

I do have comprehensive, but so far my insurance company is NOT representing my interests. That is why I am seeing a lawyer. I believe that my insurance company is in breach of their fiduciary responsibilites. They probably think that most people are not aware of what the responsibilites are. As far as I am concerned, it is my insurance companies responsibility to sue the other insurance company for the disparity in what they are willing to pay, and what the actual loss is. If they fail to do so, I am considerign sueing THEM.

Their position is that their sole responsibility is to give me a settlement for the write-off - end of story. We shall see what the lawyer says.

The ownership of the van is MINE. The van cannot me moved or scrapped without my written permission. If I accept the write-off settlement, then I still must sign the transfer of ownership papers before the insurance company can recover the car. :)

I am heading that direction. Not sure if a jury would be involved here or not. But I will be finding out.

Looking into it! :)

Here is is a "Crown Prosecutor". The charges against this kid come under the motor vehicle act, which is separate and appart from the "civil" issues (as far as I know). As far as I know, the CP cannot order restitution here - that is the privy of a Judge.

I am not sure my wife could do this. I think she would blow a gasket. At the accident scene, the mother was trying to play victim to the Cops - who, basically, ignored her. I suspect I know how far we would get with the mother, but I will discuss this with my wife.

I will double check with the lawyer, but I believe it is 2 years here. What we have is re-agrivation of old injuries as well. My wife has had problems with her wrist and carple tunnel - and has been on low-dose celebrex for a long time. This accident is causing her inceased pain - and there is no telling how long she may be off work. Again, real important to see the lawer on this. But it is also important to wait to the end of the statutory limit in an attempt to quanitfy the damages.

Thanks for all the pointers Ted, I really appreciate it.

Reply to
NewMan

I think the real issue is the insurance company only wants to look at the value of the vehicle instead of the value of the loss. The piece of metal in the driveway is only one small portion of the total loss.

Ks

Reply to
KS

Well that is a sticky point I'm afraid since they are going to consider depreciation on the work done. That's understandable. It is also why your almost certainly going to end up in front of a judge. The insurance company has internal guidelines on paying out claims, of course. If your work is 3 years old it certainly will be out of those internal guidelines so none of the lower level employees are going to have the authority to approve a claim higher than book, and the underwriter is going to just stall on it.

You could have called your insurance comissioner first, before dealing with the lawyer. You are correct in that your insurance company is legally required by law to represent your interests in a case where it's 100% the other guys' fault, and you are making a claim against your policy, because legally your insurance company has the right to go after the other company to get the money. It's stupid for them to argue with you over it because they don't lose any money, and they are certainly going to lose a customer. Who is insuring you?

Right,. but the usual trick that is pulled in these circumstances is the vehicle is too badly damaged to be moved, so it is towed to an impound lot and sits on the lot collecting lot fees. A lot of these impound lots have sweetheart deals with the insurance companies. The insurance company does not want the car, if it's totaled, and it costs money for them to dispose of it, so the usual trick is to have the owner sign over the title to the insurance company who then just gives it to the tow lot owner in exchange for dropping all the lot fees. The tow lot owner then parts out the vehicle and makes a good $500-$600 or so doing it.

If your van is in your driveway your fine.

It depends on the dollar amount the claim is I think. In small claims here there is no trial by jury but it sounds like the amounts involved are too high for that.

My guess is they will plea bargain it down to avoid trial and get a conviction, and that's why you want to be involved and make sure that when they are negotiating the plea, that they know your not going to get a full payout from the insurance company, and that you want restitution.

Well there you have it, that's why the kid got into the accident in the first place. The parents are basically teaching him that it's OK to flout the law. That is a shame. You will probably find the kid is more sorry about the incident than the parents are.

Make absolutely sure that the property settlement and medical settlement aren't tied together. They will probably try to do that. But from my vantage point you are almost certainly going to have to go in front of a judge to get a better settlement. And here's the root of the problem. You have 2 things you need to prove to the judge. First, the expenditures on the van. That's the easy part, you have it documented. Second you have to prove that you didn't pee away all the expenditures made. Like for example you didn't dump $2,000 into the transmission then spend the next 6 months dragracing the van on the weekends. Or you didn't spend $2000 on bodywork and then smash the door into a telephone pole 6 months before the accident. If you can prove that, with appraisal, written testimonial from the neighbors, whatever, you have an open and shut case that the van's market value was worth a great deal more than blue-book.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

That depends on how your policy is written. Seems to me that a lot of comprehensive policies out there pay for vehicle rental, etc. that have nothing whatsoever to do with the value of the vehicle, and everything to do with the value of the loss.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.